Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Arnauld's original objection demonstrates that validating the rule requires trusting the very faculty the rule is meant to certify.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Circularity in foundational rules doesn't invalidate them; all formal systems rest on axioms that cannot be externally justified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Using a faculty to validate itself differs from the faculty being unreliable; trustworthiness and self-application are distinct issues.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Arnauld's objection assumes we need prior certification of our faculties, but basic reliability may be epistemically foundational.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Descartes' rule of clear and distinct ideas requires clear and distinct perception to validate itself, creating circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Any criterion of truth must be applied by the mind to judge itself, making independent verification logically impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Arnauld identifies a genuine regress: we need assurance the rule works, but that assurance itself depends on the rule.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42